Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavioral context beyond them: pagination mechanics (pages up to 100, pass next_cursor back as cursor), ordering (newest first), and the auth prerequisite (Cotlet API key with access to this app). It stops short of rate-limit or error behavior, so not a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with purpose and payload description, and each sentence carries information (filters, level semantics, pagination, auth). The only waste is the repeated 'newest first', stated twice in the first two sentences, which is a small redundancy rather than a structural problem.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields (name, role, level, join date), the sort order, the page size and cursor handling, and the auth requirement. An agent has everything needed to call this paginated list tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it maps next_cursor to the cursor parameter for paging and explains that level is Skool's 1-9 gamification level with points as the likes that count toward it. The role/date filtering is restated clearly. Minor naming drift ('next_cursor' vs the schema's 'cursor') keeps it from a 5.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Lists members of one group') plus what it returns (name, role, level, join date) and the sort order. An agent can distinguish it from skool_list_groups and skool_list_membership_requests without opening a schema, since it is explicitly scoped to members of a single existing group.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a concrete usage scenario ('Filter by role or by join date to find this week's new members'), which clearly signals when the tool applies. However, it never names an alternative nor an exclusion (e.g., membership requests pending approval vs. existing members), so routing between skool_list_members and skool_list_membership_requests is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.